Well looking forward, the next meeting is scheduled for August 3,4,and 5th in Minneapolis.

In the hopes it becomes a tradition, I will be organizing a jump day on Thursday August 2nd at Twin Cities. The last jump day had exactly 10 BOD members and 5 USPA Staff present. The weather was good and the sights were awesome at Skydive San Diego. We all had the opportunity to chat with the locals, making for a great day.

The purpose is to get out there meet and greet members and be available for any comments or concerns prior to the meeting. Keep in mind there are a lot of BOD members who follow these threads so they are listening and if need be can be contacted during the year if you have any problems. They are there for you the members and they should be representing accordingly.

Well looking forward, the next meeting is scheduled for August 3,4,and 5th in Minneapolis.

In the hopes it becomes a tradition, I will be organizing a jump day on Thursday August 2nd at Twin Cities. The last jump day had exactly 10 BOD members and 5 USPA Staff present. The weather was good and the sights were awesome at Skydive San Diego. We all had the opportunity to chat with the locals, making for a great day.

The purpose is to get out there meet and greet members and be available for any comments or concerns prior to the meeting. Keep in mind there are a lot of BOD members who follow these threads so they are listening and if need be can be contacted during the year if you have any problems. They are there for you the members and they should be representing accordingly.

Update the SIM to cover PLF's going forward/backward (ya know, almost like these canopies go in a direction other than straight down). Maybe then people will realize it's not suppose to be feet-knees-face (though I do get a kick out of watching people do it to demonstrate they know how during coach courses)

I talked to Jim Crouch about that a while back and he said it would be in the new SIM and it's not.

Well looking forward, the next meeting is scheduled for August 3,4,and 5th in Minneapolis.

In the hopes it becomes a tradition, I will be organizing a jump day on Thursday August 2nd at Twin Cities. The last jump day had exactly 10 BOD members and 5 USPA Staff present. The weather was good and the sights were awesome at Skydive San Diego. We all had the opportunity to chat with the locals, making for a great day.

The purpose is to get out there meet and greet members and be available for any comments or concerns prior to the meeting. Keep in mind there are a lot of BOD members who follow these threads so they are listening and if need be can be contacted during the year if you have any problems. They are there for you the members and they should be representing accordingly.

I hope to see you there.

Blue Sky's Rich Winstock National Director

Put VISIBLE Altimeters back on ALL Students.

Matt

Make those items "recommended" a BSR. Camera Jumps being the first one to fix!

Make the Coach requirement 200 jumps.

Keep the 12 months as a Coach before getting an I rating, keep the "or over 500 Jumps", but ENFORCE the Instructional Requirements. The number of Coached Jumps and FJC's etc.

Raise Tandem I to 1000 Jumps.

Make the Handcam a 200 Tandem Jump minimum.

Make Handle checks a BSR.

Make overall Safety and Quality Student Training a Priority, not the DZO's pocket book the priority.

All DZO's on the BOD should recuse themselves from votes that cover any of the above items, as well as ones that include disciplinary actions if they themselves (or any BOD member) have been involved in unsafe skydiving operations and actions, to include FAR Violation sthey either admitted to or witnessed and did nothing to stop. (they should actually resign, but I will accept not running this time too).

I am still debating even renewing my membership. I can jump at good DZ's with out one.

Matt

I have felt the same way many times Matt and I hope you reconsider. We need people like you on the board.

Well, my member ship renewal is laying on the kitchen table, expires March 31st. I will think about renewing, as to the other thing, not right now, thinking about it that is. Thinking about two things is just too much work!

Well looking forward, the next meeting is scheduled for August 3,4,and 5th in Minneapolis.

In the hopes it becomes a tradition, I will be organizing a jump day on Thursday August 2nd at Twin Cities. The last jump day had exactly 10 BOD members and 5 USPA Staff present. The weather was good and the sights were awesome at Skydive San Diego. We all had the opportunity to chat with the locals, making for a great day.

The purpose is to get out there meet and greet members and be available for any comments or concerns prior to the meeting. Keep in mind there are a lot of BOD members who follow these threads so they are listening and if need be can be contacted during the year if you have any problems. They are there for you the members and they should be representing accordingly.

I hope to see you there.

Blue Sky's Rich Winstock National Director

Put VISIBLE Altimeters back on ALL Students.

Matt

Make those items "recommended" a BSR. Camera Jumps being the first one to fix!

Make the Coach requirement 200 jumps.

Keep the 12 months as a Coach before getting an I rating, keep the "or over 500 Jumps", but ENFORCE the Instructional Requirements. The number of Coached Jumps and FJC's etc.

Raise Tandem I to 1000 Jumps.

Make the Handcam a 200 Tandem Jump minimum.

Make Handle checks a BSR.

Make overall Safety and Quality Student Training a Priority, not the DZO's pocket book the priority.

All DZO's on the BOD should recuse themselves from votes that cover any of the above items, as well as ones that include disciplinary actions if they themselves (or any BOD member) have been involved in unsafe skydiving operations and actions, to include FAR Violation sthey either admitted to or witnessed and did nothing to stop. (they should actually resign, but I will accept not running this time too).

Matt

Im down with 200 jumps for coach. Its just silly to say Cessna DZs wont be able to operate if this is changed. That's the excuse iv been hearing for years.

A while back, USPA asked DZO's for their input regarding what we were doing to address High performance landings at our perspective DZ's. I wrote a letter with my input.

First and foremost, a minimum jump number requirement (let's say 500 for arguments sake). Secondly, once you reach the jump number requirement, each DZO or S&TA at their DZ will determine by watching your canopy skills during this time frame to determine if you are a "candidate" to be a high performance canopy pilot, i.e. do you make proper decisions, not endangering the lives of yourself and others. Once you have been deemed a candidate, the DZO or S&TA will sign off your "candidate" card so that you can attend a High Performance canopy course, taught by skilled and licensed canopy instructors (Rated Course). After successful completion of the course, you are now the holder of an official :Canopy Pilot License. This endorsement would appear on your USPA card. This doesn't mean that you are cleared for 720's and attending swoop comps, this license is your license to learn. If you are not using due care and sticking with the guidelines set forth by the course, you can receive disciplinary action by the S&TA..progressive discipline: verbal warning, remedial training, suspension and finally revocation of your license for continued violations.

This way when 'DUMBASS" appears at my DZ,and when his gear is inspected while filling out our waiver and we notice his "Backpack" size container, he will then be asked to show his proficiency and skill level to fly his canopy by showing his High performance Canopy License. NO LICENSE, NO JUMP! If a DZO allows this person to jump that canopy without documented proof that they are capable, then they should be held negligent, in the case of an accident.

I have seen too many "low time" jumpers leave my DZ and go to another so that they will be allowed to jump their tiny canopies. These people are endangering the lives of everyone else that is in the air with them.

Example: I have a drivers license, does it mean I can drive a semi truck full of hazardous materials? No..I have to have special training and a license to prove it. I have a pilot license to fly single engine planes only...if i want to fly a jet...special training and license, twin engines, special training and license...etc.

I have an AFF, Tandem, Static Line , Pro and Tandem I/E, all special training I had to get to receive these licenses all required by USPA to conduct such activities> I am required to receive continuous training in order to keep my licenses current. As much as the USPA enjoys charging us for these licenses, here is another license that they can make more money from.

I here the term.."we should just police ourselves" IT AIN'T WORKING FOLKS"!!!!! The number one killer our sport..Dying under open parachutes..

Until USPA stops turning their heads and closing their eyes, this pattern will only worsen!!!!

I definately agree with your sentiments whole heartily....and I can with certainty say so does the full BOD especially the S&T committee. Even if I said lets go ahead and implement everything you said, there is a huge problem. It is not that our heads are in the sand at all. The problem is that each small idea must be completely thought out and vetted to some degree. Let me give you an example. you mentioned that once approved by the S&TA and DZO then they should take a advanced or high performance canopy course. Now that sounds great and please understand I am on your side with it but let me show you how the cogs slow down with just that one idea. The following questions WILL arise: 1) Who can teach the course? 2) How or what path can an instructor take to get that particular rating? 3) If we create that rating, who will teach it, where will we get the syllabus, how do we roll it out? 4) Now once created what impact will it create internally on our staff to oversee it? 5) What syllabus will we use, who will come up with the material, the course? Who will teach the Canopy high performance instructors to teach it? 6) What are the prerequisites for the course, the instructor, the candidate? 7) Who will come up with the instructor course and who will teach that? 8) Will we grandfather those in that are already competent? 9) Will we grandfather those who are already teaching canopy courses? 10) How will these new ratings fall into the hierarchy of ratings within USPA?

These are exactly what will have to be tackled to get just this one small request done. Can it be done? Yes but it will take a shit ton of work, and a shit ton of time. The current BOD up until this next election only sits for 2 years or four meetings. Then you have to start from scratch again. Yes the three year term will help get important things done but work in the interim will be mandatory. We are working on determining all of the above questions for a wingsuit rating right now. That means the sub committee is working in between meetings to answer all of the above questions. Not an easy task.

I am not being a nah sayer at all, I am just pointing out the process is very difficult to navigate through. I came onto the BOD wanting to change the world, but unfortunately as much as I would like to do, it has to be done slow and methodical. We can not make any knee jerk reactions to any one situation. Not saying this would be a knee jerk reaction by the way.

Anyhow, I can assure you that your thoughts and concerns are well represented and that all of us would like to see the statistics improve.

Even if I said lets go ahead and implement everything you said, there is a huge problem. It is not that our heads are in the sand at all. The problem is that each small idea must be completely thought out and vetted to some degree.

Of coruse. What's your excuse for not implementing anything he said, or anything anyone has said?

What about some basic WL restrictions? They've been in use for years in many countries, who all report very low numbers of open canopy incidents.

Brian Germain publushed a great chart many years ago, why not just implement that to start with? It's already written, just make it a 'rule' and put it in place. Allow jumpers to keep their current canopy, but require them to adhere to the chart for a downsize.

Here's the real problem with your response to the poster, you correctly point out the laundry list of steps that need to be taken, but that's it. There's no time-table, no inidcation that you're going to get started, it's just a 'it's complicated', and then nothing.

My daughter asked me how to bake a cake for grandma's birthday, and I said there's a lot of steps to baking a cake. HOWEVER, then I pulled out a mixing bowl and some flour and got to work knocking down those steps, one at a time, until we had a cake. Get it?

How about this - come up with a plan, an idea for how we can better train and equip jumpers in the areas of canopy control and selection. Then plot out all the steps needed to make it happen, and a rough time-table for completing those steps. Finally, appoint someone to tackle step #1 and let them get to work.

That would be progress, and it would represent far more then we've seen from the BOD on this issue in the past.

Here's a hint I've mentioned before - take advantage of the resources you have available. Talk to the people who are curently running canopy control courses and see what their thoughts are. Interview them seperately, and see if there are 'common threads' between what they say, this is how you discover the more widespread problems, and can help you to better tailor the USPA canopy control courses.

Here's another hint (and one that won't be popular with DZOs, both on the BOD or otherwise) - if the plan requires extra effort from them in the areas of administration and enfrocement and they protest on those grounds, fuck them. Think about it, if you require every jumper to take canopy control courses and to adhere to a WL limitation, it's going to cost every jumper time and money to do their part to solve this problem, and DZOs can put their fair share and take on the workload of shuffling papers and enforcing the rules. This is a huge problem for the entire sport, and it's going to take effort from everyone (jumpers, DZOs, BODs, etc) to solve it.

There no free lunch, but the problem at hand is that the BOD is made up of DZOs, and when it comes to voting on how much DZOs should pay for lunch, which way do you think their going to vote?